Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

53. While I support your intention I dont know if I agree about the legality.

Legal is a interesting concept. For example if a law is passed it is by definition legal until it is overturned. If Congress passed a law today that authorized slavery, then slavery would be legal until the SCOTUS declared it illegal. In other words slavery isnt inherently legal or illegal, it's what the law is at the time.

One might say that because Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq (or whatever the buzz words where) that that made it legal. Personally, I dont believe Congress has the authority to relinquish the responsibility defined for them via the Constitution. But, until the SCOTUS agrees, it must be considered legal. Well, after having gone thru that, maybe I do agree with you.

By-the-way I noticed you were dubbed with the label of "apologist" something or other. This is the new pejorative code word being used to stymie disagreement via ridicule.

51. OMG, what have you done? You've branded him an, an "apologist".

Is that code for "you disagree with me and must be dealt with hereto."?

Seems that when we run out of decent argument, we start the name calling and "apologist" is the new pejorative.

Whether or not the Iraq War was "legal" is contentious. I happen to believe that it was illegal but I certainly dont think I am in a position to declare that those that dont agree with me are war apologists. Seems to me that you are trying to shut off argument with ridicule.

20. Bullshit!

This is another cheap rhetorical bullshit line. The world knows the Iraq war was illegal. Bush fucking destroyed the country and led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

That is the event that has complicated the fight against terrorism. The drone strikes are not equivalent, and in fact, some of them are being carried out with the cooperation of the countries where terrorist are targeted.

People are angry that at the civilian casualties, but they are not creating nearly the same level of animosity as the Iraq war did.

24. Spare yourself.

The whole point is that we don't know who is getting the shaft from the drones. Can you say, "double tap"? I'm sure nobody's getting upset over that in the ProSense household, are they? How nice for you.

54. It goes back to my original response to your question.

Both ventures invite vindictive attitudes from those afflicted. I'm sure you've got a finger on the pulse of the Iraqis who've no doubt the illegality of our romping around their country and will only blame BushCo and not the rest of us. Likewise, I'm sure you're correct in assuming all those side-victims of signature strikes and double taps know that we have the consent of their governments to be there and do what we do with our drones. They'll probably live and let live, too.

There is no attempt to shift anything here. I just don't like the building up of negative karma that is happening nonstop in this country these days. Someday, somebody's going to get hurt on our side and looking in the mirror for answers is not one of our strong suits, as you've shown. Sad day for us. Nevertheless, may your days be filled with rainbows and lollipops, ProSense. Continue on with your notes.

34. Drone strikes are the Bush Doctrine with a light footprint.

It is pre-emption, which is the hallmark of the Bush Doctrine, the one that Palin could not remember or articulate. The difference is that Obama is much smarter. His pre-emption, the Obama Doctrine perhaps, is extended and targeted. It is still endless warfare. It still kills innocent people. It still kills pre-emptively. It is just lighter and cheaper and the country pays less attention

37. Pre-emption by any other name smells just as bloody.

Clinton bombed Afghanistan only after bin Laden had attacked US Embassies. "Pursuing terrorist plotting against the U.S." should not be grounds for acts of war. That is pre-emption. That is Bush Doctrine.

41. I did no such thing.

"There is a wide expanse of preventative measures against attacks with sound intelligence that do not require acts of war.

Bush could have, and should have, stopped the attacks. And, here is the kicker for you, it wouldn't have required an act of war!"

You're speaking in generalizations. What exactly are the "preventative measures" for say bin Laden plotting attacks on the U.S.?

Bush didn't even pursue bin Laden. Also, how do you know what the appropriate response would have been prior to the attacks?

The notion that there are no circumstances that require the pursuit of terrorists in which lethal force is justified ignores reality.

In 2002, another U.S. citizen was killed in Yemen, though it was originally stated that he was not the target.

Kamal Derwish (also Ahmed Hijazi) was an American citizen killed by the CIA as part of a covert targeted killing mission in Yemen on November 5, 2002. The CIA used an RQ-1 Predator drone to shoot a Hellfire missile, destroying the vehicle in which he was driving with five others.

Derwish had been closely linked to the growing religious fundamentalism of the Lackawanna Six, a group of Muslim-Americans who had attended lectures in his apartment near Buffalo, New York.

That an American citizen had been killed by the CIA without trial drew criticism. American authorities quickly back-pedaled on their stories celebrating the death of Derwish, instead noting they had been unaware he was in the car which they said had been targeted for its other occupants, including Abu Ali al-Harithi, believed to have played some role in the USS Cole bombing.

<...>

On November 3, 2002, Derwish and al-Harithi were part of a convoy of vehicles moving through the Yemeni desert trying to meet someone, unaware that their contact was cooperating with US forces to lure them into a trap. As their driver spoke on satellite phone, trying to figure out why the two parties couldn't see each other if they were both at the rendezvous point, a Predator drone launched a Hellfire missile, killing everybody in the vehicle. CIA officers in Djibouti had received clearance for the attack from director George Tenet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish

Human Rights Watch issued this statement about the target:

The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.

42. You continue to muddy the waters. You use the term "terrorist,"

yet many, no most, killed have never carried out an attack against the US. This is pre-emption. Dance around it all you like, you just look like you are asking the wrong question.

You ask, "How can we justify this since Obama is doing it?" Rather than, " Is it right that we are doing it?"

I know I can only get so far with you, which is nowhere. However, do you see how hedged the HRW language is? "alleged," "arguably." Then you cite the three criteria, which are all subjective of the Executive. Dangerous slope.

43. No, you are the

"You continue to muddy the waters. You use the term 'terrorist,' yet many, no most, killed have never carried out an attack against the US. This is pre-emption. Dance around it all you like, you just look like you are asking the wrong question."

...dancing around your assumptions. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. You have no idea what these targets were involved in.

The point of the debate is to establish if these individuals are legitimate targets for lethal force. Their membership in al-Qaeda has already been established.

44. Al-Qaeda is not a monolithic organization.

You know that. AQ in Yemen is not the same as AQ in Pakistan and neither are the same as AQ in Afghanistan or the same as the AQ that carried out the 9/11 attacks.

And, you are right. I have no idea what the targets were involved in. Neither do you! That is the very point. Thank you for helping me make it. Membership in AQ, as defined by the Executive is not automatic grounds for lethal force.

45. What exactly

"Al-Qaeda is not a monolithic organization."

...does that have to do with the targets or each group's activities?

"And, you are right. I have no idea what the targets were involved in. Neither do you! That is the very point. Thank you for helping me make it. Membership in AQ, as defined by the Executive is not automatic grounds for lethal force."

I didn't say it was "automatic grounds for lethal force." Some will surrender. Some will be apprehended. Some will be killed.

My point is that the debate is about the process to determine when a terrorist is an appropriate target for lethal force.

48. You are almost there.

"My point is that the debate is about the process to determine when a terrorist is an appropriate target for lethal force."

You are still asking the wrong question. There are multiple questions here. First, what is a "terrorist?" Then, does the "terrorist" have to be AQ? Next, does the "AQ terrorist" have to be high-ranking? Also, does the AQ terrorist have to actually have caused injury to the US? There are probably more questions to be answered. But, then, and only then, should we even turn to the question of what the response should be.

We are killing many innocent people. You should address that. We are labeling any male of a certain age as a legitimate target, without even knowing their identity. You should address that. We are carrying out acts of war on anonymous people, some as young as 12, you should address that. We are targeting the first aid responders and those attending funerals. You should address that.

And, the vat majority killed have never harmed a single American. You should address that.

This is Bush-Obama Doctrine is a mess that will take decades to untangle. The apologists have their work cut out for them.

49. Hey,

You are still asking the wrong question. There are multiple questions here. First, what is a "terrorist?" Then, does the "terrorist" have to be AQ? Next, does the "AQ terrorist" have to be high-ranking? Also, does the AQ terrorist have to actually have caused injury to the US? There are probably more questions to be answered. But, then, and only then, should we even turn to the question of what the response should be.

...feel free to spend your time researching those answers. I'm already aware of what a terrorist is.

As for my point, I thing "the debate is about the process to determine when a terrorist is an appropriate target for lethal force" pretty much covers it.